Tom: There can be no "right" that demands violating the natural rights of another human being.

Your post shows you a bit unclear on the concept.

LOL. I was thinkin' the same about you. I define "right" as a valid claim based on law, tradition or morality. How are you defining it? If you'd said there can be no "natural rights" that demand violating of the natural rights of another human being, I probably woulda agreed with you.

Natural rights are based on morality. The examples I cited show "rights" based on laws that do demand violating natural rights, contrary to your assertion.

Because a law exists in America does not make it consistent with individual rights. In point of fact, if someone owned his own restaurant, he should be allowed to refuse service to any damn person he wants. It's his restaurant. If he's stupid enough to not let black people in there, fine with me. Damn straight he wouldn't find me coming into his restaurant either, and I suspect I'm far from the only one. I visualize picket signs...

The problem may be your misuse of terminology. A black person has an individual civil right not to be discriminated against. The white restaurant owner has an individual moral (and traditional) right to dictate how his property will be used. Society has decided the state has a compelling interest in limiting the property rights of the restaurant owner in favor of the civil rights of others.

Natural rights aren't absolute. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater or even burn the leaves on your lawn if you live in a big city. Individuals accept societal limitations on natural rights as part of the price for living in close proximity with other individuals.

Meanwhile, the guy down the road who's less looney and likes money no matter who's carrying it, picks up all the business. The market at work.

The problem in the good ol' days of discrimination was the guy down the road wouldn't let some people into his restaurant either. Or his motel. Or his school. Southerners spent decades proving they'd rather cater to their prejudices than to their economic interests and the interests of the greater society. The greater society had a compelling interest in further limiting the property rights of bigots and did so, rightfully in my opinion, considering the damage done by the alternative.

You might have noticed that modern America is a bit tough on property rights.

The question is whether society's toughness is justified by a compelling interest in limiting those rights. Should I be allowed to pollute my body (my property) with all kinds of substances? Should I be allowed to store radioactive waste out behind the barn? Should restaurant owners be allowed to hire hooker waitresses who'll give blowjobs to everyone who orders the Special?

Ayn Rand was vehemently pro-choice. Conservatives feel differently. I am against abortion, unsure about whether it should be a legal issue, and dead sure my tax money shouldn't be paying for it. But I believe that the legality should be handled at the state level, tops. It is not and should never have been a Federal issue.

I was told Rand changed her mind before she died, but I haven't read her reasoning. I've read what her one-time professor associate / lover had to say about the issue. He was strongly pro-choice.

Do you think the unborn conceptus is a human being? And if so, why doesn't its right to life demand violating the natural rights of the woman carrying it?